Peo v. Love

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 15, 2026
• Docket: 24CA1907
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24CA1907 Peo v Love 01-15-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA1907 El Paso County District Court No. 21CR1789 Honorable David Prince, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Ceazar Cedrick Love,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Division VII Opinion by JUSTICE MARTINEZ* Pawar and Gomez, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced January 15, 2026

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Josiah Beamish, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kinniry Law Office, Janet Kinniry, Gardner, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Caezar Cedrick Love, raises claims related to the

validity of his guilty plea and the district court’s order granting

presentence confinement credit (PSCC). We dismiss the appeal.

I. Background

¶2 Following a shooting, Love was charged with multiple criminal

offenses, including first degree murder, as well as four habitual

criminal counts and two crime of violence sentence enhancers.

¶3 Love pleaded guilty to second degree murder and stipulated to

a twenty-five-year prison sentence in exchange for dismissal of the

remaining counts. The plea agreement noted that Love was on

parole for two other felonies at the time of the commission of the

offenses here and that his sentence would be

“consecutive/concurrent” with his parole revocation cases. The

district court sentenced Love in accordance with the plea agreement

and ordered that his twenty-five-year sentence be served

consecutively to his parole revocation cases. The court agreed to

reserve the matter of PSCC.

¶4 Thereafter, Love requested 1,135 days of PSCC, from the date

he was notified (while serving a sentence in Louisiana) that charges

had been filed until the date he was sentenced. In his motion, he

1 noted that while the district court ordered that he serve the

sentence consecutive to his parole cases, “at the time of sentencing,

[he] was no longer serving a sentence on either of [those cases].”

The People requested that the court award thirty-four days of PSCC,

from the date Love completed his parole sentences until the date he

was sentenced. The district court agreed with the People and

awarded thirty-four days of PSCC.

II. Discussion

¶5 Love asserts that his plea was unlawfully induced by the

provision of the plea agreement that allowed the district court the

option to sentence “consecutive/concurrent” with his parole

revocation cases because section 18-1.3-405, C.R.S. 2025, “does

not permit” a concurrent sentence in these circumstances. But

Love declares that this issue is “moot” because the district court did

not rely on this section, and Love then abandons the argument.

Because Love declares that his claim is moot and abandons it, we

will not address it.

¶6 Love’s statement of the issue in his opening brief questions

whether the district court erred by awarding PSCC because it

awarded credit “solely to his parole revocation sentence[s].”

2 However, he does not provide any argument in support of this

stated issue and later concedes in the conclusion section of his

opening brief that the court “lawfully applied presentence

confinement credits.” Because Love presents no argument or

analysis regarding whether the court erred in how much PSCC it

awarded, we do not address this issue. See People v. Liggett, 2021

COA 51, ¶ 53 (acknowledging that appellate courts do not address

undeveloped arguments); see also People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d

741, 752 (Colo. 1989) (“It is the duty of counsel for appealing

parties to inform a reviewing court both as to the specific errors

relied upon and as to the grounds, supporting facts and authorities

therefor.”).

III. Disposition

¶7 The appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE Pawar and JUDGE Gomez concur.